Dismissed

Aravindaksha Menon, v. Ali Akbar

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019RCRev./207/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed revision petitions challenging eviction orders under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It rejected the tenants' claim for protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act regarding commercial lease and upheld the Landlord's bona fide need for eviction, granting a four-month grace period subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed; tenants granted four months to vacate upon filing affidavit and paying rent.

Aravindaksha Menon, Vs Ali Akbar — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No.207 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 63/2012 of 1ST ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DATED 21-12-2017

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 117/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR DATED 31-07-2012

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

ARAVINDAKSHA MENON, AGED 76 YEARS S/O. KORAPPATH GANGADHARANMENON, KURUPPAM ROAD JUNCTION, THRISSUR, PIN 680 001

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶14

1 ALI AKBAR, AGED 40 YEARS

¶15

S/O. ABOOBAKER, VAISYAM VEEDU, EDAKAZHIYUR VILLAGE AND DESOM CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR 680 515.

¶16

2 HABEEBKHAN,

¶17

AGED 62 YEARS S/O. SANAVULLAKHAN, ASMATHULLAKHAN FABRICS, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR NOW RESIDING AT APSARA GARDEN, NELLIKKUNNU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680 005.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI SMT.R.KRISHNA

¶19

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev..294/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶21

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶27

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶28

RCRev..No.294 of 2018

¶29

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 60/2012 of 1ST ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DATED 21-12-2017

¶30

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 117/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR DATED 31-07-2012

¶31

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶32

HABEEBKHAN

¶33

AGED 62 YEARS S/O SANAVULLAKHAN, ASMATHULLAKHAN FABRICS, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT APSARA GARDEN, NELLIKUNNU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680005

¶34

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶35

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT:

¶36

1 ALI AKBAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O ABOOBAKER, VASIYAM VEEDU, EDAKAZHIYUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR 680 515

¶37

2 ARAVINDAKSHA MENON, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O KORAPPATH GANGADHARAMENON, KURUPPAM ROAD JUNCTION, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

¶38

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶39

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶40

¶41

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev..207/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶43

¶44

ORDER

¶45

[ RCRev. 207/2019 ,RCRev..294/2018 ]

¶46

A. Hariprasad, J.

¶47

These revision petitions are filed by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in R.C.P. No. 117 of 2001 before the Rent Control

¶48

Court, Thrissur. The first respondent herein filed the petition

¶49

seeking eviction of the revision petitioners urging grounds under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease

¶50

and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act').

¶51

It is the case of the petitioner in the eviction

¶52

petition that he purchased the petition schedule rooms as per

¶53

Ext.A2. He would contend that respondents 1 and 3 claimed

¶54

tenancy right in respect of the two rooms in the building and the

¶55

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶56

¶57

2^nd respondent was impleaded only in the capacity that he is the

¶58

son of the 1^st respondent. Later, the 1^st respondent died and

¶59

the 2^nd respondent is now continuing the business. According to the petitioner, he was permanently residing along with his parents abroad. He is intending to come back to India and start a business in Home Appliances in the petition schedule room for his livelihood. He would contend that his need is bona fide and genuine. It is further averred in the eviction petition that the petitioner intended to use the ground floor as a show room and the first floor as a godown. According to the petitioner, no other room is in his possession to start the proposed business and

¶60

that he is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(3)

¶61

of the Act.

¶62

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶63

¶64

The 2^nd respondent in the eviction petition filed a

¶65

counter statement disputing the factual allegations in the

¶66

petition. According to him, the eviction petition is without bona

¶67

fides and it is only a ruse to evict the tenants.

¶68

The 2^nd respondent in the eviction petition (revision

¶69

petitioner in R.C.R. No. 294 of 2018) filed a counter statement

¶70

denying the allegations in the eviction petition. He contended

¶71

that the eviction petition is bereft of bona fides and it is filed

¶72

only to unjustly evict the tenants.

¶73

The 3^rd respondent in the eviction petition

¶74

(petitioner in R.C.R. No. 207 of 2019) also opposed the

¶75

application. He contended that original tenant was deceased

¶76

Korappath Gangadhara Menon and he was having a permanent

¶77

lease in respect of the building. Under the lease arrangement,

¶78

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶79

¶80

Korappath Gangadhara Menon was permitted to make additions

¶81

to the building without taking permission from the landlord. He

¶82

had made improvements to the building. He constructed a staircase to the building. When there was a land acquisition proceeding for widening the road, compensation was paid to

¶83

him. Therefore, his is not liable to be evicted from the premises.

¶84

He also contended that the bona fide need set up is false.

¶85

Pending proceedings, the revision petitioner in

¶86

R.C.R. No.207 of 2019 filed an application before the Rent

¶87

Control Court requesting the court to refer the matter to the

¶88

land Tribunal concerned to find out whether he was entitled to

¶89

get protection of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,

¶90

1963, (in short 'the KLR Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed

¶91

his application, against which an appeal was taken before the

¶92

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶93

¶94

Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur as R.C.A. No. 79 of 2006. The Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal

¶95

and called back the records sent to the Land Tribunal and directed the Rent Control Court to consider the matter afresh. The revision petitioner in R.C.R. No. 207 of 2019 challenged the

¶96

judgment in R.C.A. No. 79 of 2006 before this Court in R.C.R. No. 110 of 2011. This Court, as per order dated 8.3.2011, considered the issues and relying on the decision in Govinda

¶97

Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2202 (2) KLT 43) found that the question of commercial or industrial lease mentioned in Section 106 of the KLR Act does not require a reference to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the KLR Act. To that extent,

¶98

the Division Bench agreed with the appellate authority. However, the Rent Control Court was directed to consider the plea of

¶99

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶100

¶101

commercial lease, raised by the 3^rd respondent in the eviction

¶102

petition, with reference to the statutory provision in Section 106 of the KLR Act.

¶103

The Rent Control Court after allowing the parties to

¶104

adduce evidence – both oral and documentary – entered a

¶105

finding that the eviction petitioner/respondent is not entitled to

¶106

get an order of eviction under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act.

¶107

However, the plea under Section 11 (3) of the Act was allowed in

¶108

favour of the landlord finding that he established a bona fide

¶109

need and also that the tenants failed to prove that they are entitled to the protection under the 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3)

¶110

of the Act. The Rent Control Court also considered elaborately

¶111

the question relating to commercial lease under Section 106 of

¶112

the KLR Act and entered a finding that the 3^rd respondent in the

¶113

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶114

¶115

eviction proceedings is not entitled to get any benefit under the

¶116

above provision.

¶117

Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenants

¶118

approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur with

¶119

two appeals namely RCA Nos. 60 and 63 of 2012. After

¶120

reconsidering the entire issues and appreciating the evidence once again, the appellate authority agreed with the Rent Control

¶121

Court and confirmed the order of eviction. Hence, these revisions at the instance of the tenants.

¶122

Heard the learned counsel for the revision

¶123

petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

¶124

The ground urged by the respondent/landlord

¶125

under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act does not survive for consideration as it has been concurrently found by the

¶126

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶127

¶128

authorities below that there is no arrears of rent kept by the

¶129

tenants to attract an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of

¶130

the Act.

¶131

We are mainly concerned with the legality,

¶132

regularity and propriety of an order of eviction passed under

¶133

Section 11 (3) of the Act. However, disallowance of the claim of

¶134

non-evictability of the 3^rd respondent is also to be decided.

¶135

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners

¶136

contended that the 3^rd respondent in the eviction petition is

¶137

entitled to get protection under Section 106 of the KLR Act. The

¶138

said provision reads as follows:

¶139

“ 106. Special provisions relating to leases for commercial or industrial purposes .- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law, or in any contract, or in any other law, or in any contract, or in any order or decree of Court, where on any lad leased for

¶140

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶141

¶142

commercial or industrial purpose, the lessee has constructed buildings for such

¶143

commercial or industrial purpose before the 20^th May, 1967, he shall not be liable to be evicted from such land, but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy, and such rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve years.

¶144

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, -

¶145

(a) “lessee” includes a legal representative or an assignee of the lessee; and

¶146

(b) “building” means a permanent or a temporary building and includes a shed.

¶147

(IA) The lessor or the lessee may apply to such authority as may be prescribed for varying the rent referred to in sub-section (1), and thereupon such authority may, after taking into consideration such matters as may be prescribed and after giving the lessor and the lessee an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the application as it deems fit.

¶148

(2) If, between the 18^th December, 1957 and the date of commencement of this Act, any decree or order of Court

¶149

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶150

¶151

has been executed and any person dispossessed by delivery, such person shall, on application before the Land Tribunal, be entitled to restoration of possession:

¶152

Provided that, before restoration, such person shall be liable to pay-

¶153

(i) the compensation paid by the landlord for any improvements in the land and, subsisting at the time of restoration;

¶154

(ii) the compensation for any improvements effected subsequent to the delivery:

¶155

Provided further that he shall not be entitled to restoration if the property has passed on to the possession of a bona fide transferee for value.

¶156

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1), sub-section (1A) and sub-section (2) shall apply to lands owned or held by the Government of Kerala or a local authority.

¶157

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section,

¶158

“local authority” includes the Cochin Port Trust and any University established by an Act of the Kerala State Legislature.”

¶159

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶160

¶161

On a plain reading of Section 106 (1) of the KLR Act, it will be

¶162

clear that in order to secure a right to continue without being

¶163

evicted can be claimed only if the following conditions are established:

¶164

(i) The subject matter of the lease must be a land.

¶165

(ii) The lease must be for a commercial or industrial purpose.

¶166

(iii) The lessee must have constructed building for such

¶167

commercial or industrial purpose.

¶168

(iv) The construction must have been before 20^th May, 1967.

¶169

If all these ingredients are satisfied, then a lessee shall not be

¶170

liable to be evicted from such land, but he shall be liable to pay

¶171

rent under the contract of tenancy and such rent shall be liable

¶172

to be varied every 12 years. On going through the counter

¶173

statement filed by the respondents before the Rent Control

¶174

Court, we find that none of the ingredients has been specifically

¶175

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶176

¶177

pleaded by him to get the benefit under Section 106 of the KLR

¶178

Act. Even if the 3^rd respondent's case, that his predecessor constructed a staircase to an existing building is accepted, we find no reason to treat him as a commercial lessee eligible to be protected under Section 106 of the KLR Act. He has no case that his predecessor-in-interest obtained a vacant land and constructed a commercial building before 20^th May, 1967. For this single reason, the claim of benefit under Section 106 of the KLR Act cannot be maintained. Further, when was the staircase constructed is also not correctly pleaded and proved. All these aspects have been seriously considered by the Rent Control Court and entered a clear finding that the 3^rd respondent in the eviction petition cannot be regarded as a commercial lessee. We find no force in this submission since after a full fledged trial,

¶179

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶180

¶181

the Rent Control Court has entered a finding for valid reasons

¶182

that the 3^rd respondent is not a person eligible to claim benefit

¶183

under Section 106 of the KLR Act. There is no legal infirmity in

¶184

the approach by the authorities below.

¶185

In respect of the plea of bona fide need set up by

¶186

the landlord, the authorities below have correctly analysed the

¶187

scope of evidence and entered a clear finding that the landlord

¶188

has established the bona fide need. We find no reason to

¶189

interfere with the factual findings properly made by the

¶190

authorities below, that too in a revision of this nature.

¶191

The authorities below also entered a definite

¶192

finding that the tenants are not entitled to claim protection of

¶193

the 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. This is a finding

¶194

based on evidence available on record.

¶195

RCR.294/2018 & 207/2019

¶196

¶197

Having regard to the factual and legal issues

¶198

involved in these cases, we find that the authorities below have

¶199

acted well within their jurisdiction, conferred on them by the Statute, and entered a correct finding. Hence, the revision petitions are found to be without any merit. Both the revision

¶200

petitions are dismissed.

¶201

However, considering the plea that the tenants are conducting business from 1970 onwards and also the plea of the

¶202

landlord that the eviction petition was filed in 2001, we find that

¶203

the tenants shall be allowed to continue for a period of four

¶204

months on fulfilling the following conditions:

¶205